Why Google's Android for PC Launch May Be Messy and Controversial (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0180729460
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/02/04/099210/why-googles-android-for-pc-launch-may-be-messy-and-controversial
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/tech/869659/aluminium-why-googles-android-for-pc-launch-may-be-messy-and-controversial
The new OS won't be compatible with all existing Chromebook hardware, and Google will be forced to maintain ChromeOS through at least 2033 to honor its 10-year support commitment to current users -- meaning two parallel operating systems running for years.
The timeline itself is messier than Google has let on publicly, the filings suggest. Sameer Samat, Google's head of Android, called the merger "something we're super excited about for next year" last September, but court filings describe the "fastest path" to market as offering Aluminium to "commercial trusted testers" in late 2026 before a full release in 2028.
Enterprise and education customers -- the segments where Chromebooks currently dominate -- are slated for 2028 as well. Columbia computer science professor Jason Nieh, who interviewed Google engineers as a witness in the case, testified that Aluminium requires a heavier software stack and more powerful hardware to run.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/tech/869659/aluminium-why-googles-android-for-pc-launch-may-be-messy-and-controversial
It's finally the year of Linux on the desktopâ (Score:1)
Itâ(TM)s finally the year of Linux on the desktop. And it will be locked down so tight that it can only install software that someone else thinks users should be allowed to. At least Microsoft allows users to make choices about what software they run. Maybe this will at least convince more people to try Ubuntu.
Re:It's finally the year of Linux on the desktop (Score:3)
Well, the general public i.e. those not addicted to Apple toys, are at least pretty familiar w/ the Android interface, be it on phones or tablets. It won't be a major leap to have that working for laptops. In fact, an added benefit of that to computer makers: they can now make Arm laptops from various vendors - Qualcomm, Nvidia, AMD (whenever their Arm offering is out) for starters, and any of the other myriad Arm CPU vendors out there. Instead of the x86 duopoly of AMD and Intel
The bulk of people woul
But why? (Score:2)
> Columbia computer science professor Jason Nieh, who interviewed Google engineers as a witness in the case, testified that Aluminium requires a heavier software stack and more powerful hardware to run.
This just doesn't make sense. We're supposed to believe that the software now running on phones requires more hardware than the software now running on laptops?
Re:But why? (Score:5, Insightful)
>> Columbia computer science professor Jason Nieh, who interviewed Google engineers as a witness in the case, testified that Aluminium requires a heavier software stack and more powerful hardware to run.
> This just doesn't make sense. We're supposed to believe that the software now running on phones requires more hardware than the software now running on laptops?
I'm convinced Google is run by idiots. Look at ChromeOS Flex. With just a few tweaks, with the allowance of just a few desktop apps, Google would have a wide-open opportunity to make a serious run at Microsoft's home PC dominance because of the whole Windows 11 requirements issue. There are millions upon millions of perfectly good computers that are now going to landfills because of that, and they could all have Flex running on them if it wasn't for Google's short-sighted strategy. You can't even watch a DVD on Flex after Google shitcanned VideoLan from their approved apps list. They insist you use only Google stuff via the cloud. Such a damn wasted opportunity since Flex is easy to install and use otherwise, and a fairly pleasant user experience.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that they are very smart, there are just too many of them. Get the smartest 100 people in the world, put them in a room, and wait to be amazed at how stupid the results are.
Re: (Score:2)
NOTHING makes sense! If they want to merge them both why call one Android and one Aluminium? Now they're having "desktop mode" in Android that supports keyboard and mouse, and is intended for really all display sizes, from small portable monitors to large TVs and anything in between. Just say "Android" and call it a day, it's probably the most popular OS out there anyway, take advantage of the network effect.
Microsoft tried to call their thing Windows Mobile _number_, Windows _number_ Mobile, and Windows Ph
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, a merged branding would make sense. Apple splits out its branding - they have iOS, iPadOS and from OS-X, they now have macOS, but all of these are unique to things that only Apple makes. Since both Windows and Android run on myriad devices, they're better off keeping it under one brand, and then breaking out any underlying differences b/w them separately
Should We Care? (Score:4)
Will it be anything worthwhile? Or will it be another tiny niche Google walled garden, eclipsed by Windows, MacOS, Linux...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, just like there is LineageOS on the phone side, there can be LineageOS versions for PCs as well, that won't include the walled garden. But there does need to be some way of certifying how safe various apps are, which is presumably what any app store should do. Apple has its walled garden, and has strict rules, including some really good ones, such as requiring apps to be conversant in IPv6. Any Android app store, whether from Google, Amazon or anyone else should have similar safeguards, so that use
Re: (Score:1)
chrome os pretty much is Linux. we know this is the path we always have been on. you set you phone in a dock and it is your pc.
Messy and Controversial (Score:3)
The controversy will arise from the spelling of Aluminum
Re: (Score:2)
> The controversy will arise from the spelling of Aluminum
Who cares. The only people who spell it that way are still using Imperial measurements. We've moved on to arguing over how to pronounce GIF. (It's 'jiff' BTW)
Re: (Score:2)
Burn in hell you foul heretic!
the Chromebook reset (Score:1)
the short version there gonna have to up the requirement for Chromebooks.sense this is going to be a full os not just a stripped down linux.
Metallic (Score:2)
Is it called Aluminium or Aluminum? It's already controversial.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was called Fuchsia, but I guess that was too effeminate for today's culture...
Re: (Score:2)
Are the devices measured in inches or centimeters?
How many illegal monopolies does Google want? (Score:2)
Both Google and (it's) Youtube should have been broken up by the Federal Trade Commission, long ago.
RISC Rules Everything Around Me (Score:2)
"The new OS won't be compatible with all existing Chromebook hardware"
Like, too big to fit on the drive incompatible? Or like, we checked a version number and we and our partners have decided that you're too cheap to use our new OS?
Re: (Score:3)
There are two things here. One is getting an OS that can be installed on most computers out there, unlike ChromeOS, which is limited in that area. The other is having either an upgrade path for Chrome OS, or a merge path for ChromeOS into this Android. Ideally, if it can take both, that would be great
One option could be to have different configurations of the OS depending on the resources available. If one is doing it on a barebones Chromebook w/ say, 2GB of RAM and 16GB of storage, then just install
Re: (Score:2)
> There are two things here. One is getting an OS that can be installed on most computers out there, unlike ChromeOS, which is limited in that area
ChromeOS is pretty portable. There have been multiple, successful, projects to create generic installers for it and Google even decided to bless one. ChromeOS is basically a Gentoo fork that's been heavily locked down. The only proprietary part that talks to hardware in the entire system is their display system, which is true of Android too. Google's blessed v
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with ChromeOS is Google having to maintain two Linux distributions. The only reason it even exists at all is that Chrome for Android was shit at the time at which ChromeOS was released. Its entire purpose for existing is running desktop Chrome on cheap laptops. Now that Chrome for Android is basically OK, it has no reason to exist. Unfortunately for Google they are going to have to support it for another decade, but that support could be pretty bad and probably still meet any notional promises t
Re: (Score:2)
Talking about from a platform standpoint, there are currently only two, potentially three platforms that Android would have to support: Arm, x86 and maybe RISC-V. I understand that Arm has many variants, but they just have to focus on Arm8, and maybe Arm7, depending on how far back they want to support. That would limit the number of vendors to about 3-4 - Qualcomm, AMD, Nvidia, MediaTek, unless other CPU vendors wanted to make their own hardware port of the lower levels of Linux that need to understand e
Re: (Score:2)
ChromeOS and Android are both based on Linux, so run on most stuff with a bit of effort. ChromeOS Flex is the version for general computers and is decently compatible.
This seems like a storm in a teacup. They are talking about 5-6 years of overlap, which isn't untypical for this kind of big OS shift. 10 years of support isn't massive either, it's what Microsoft offers for Windows. Support only means fixing security issues and existing bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
10 years of support is good, but if I can switch my 2 Chromebooks to Android versions, I'd much prefer that, so that I can continue to update them until I get to a version that fills up their entire storage. Or unless they croak